The Supreme Court of the United States There are limits, and then there are limits. Beyond the $2,600 per candidate per election federal limit, current law also restricts wealthy individuals in the overall amount each can give federally per two-year cycle: $46,200 to candidates; and $70,800 to all other committees, of which no more than $46,200 may go to non-national-party committees, such as state parties and PACs. (These limits are indexed for inflation every two years.) Today, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to those limits, on the grounds that they are too low, or not supported by an adequate constitutional interest at all. As we've discussed before, the Court has only recognized preventing quid pro quo corruption as an interest significant enough to restrict election-related spending, so the question is whether the overall biennial limit remains justified by these interests in an era where Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s allow plenty of ways for the wealthy to indirectly support candidates of their choosing, especially as to the limits on giving to national party committees. (The RNC is a plaintiff here; they lost before a three-judge panel below.)
Why does this matter? Join me below the fold and find out how it's the next step towards getting rid of limits altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment